NANO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 578

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NANO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 578 NANO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 445 OF 2003 NANP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 446 OF 2003 WHITLAM J SYDNEY 22 MAY 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 445 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NANO

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

N 446 OF 2003 BETWEEN: NANP

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WHITLAM J

DATE OF ORDER: 22 MAY 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. In proceeding N 445 of 2003, the application is dismissed with costs. 2. In proceeding N 446 of 2003, the application is dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 445 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NANO

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

N 446 OF 2003 BETWEEN: NANP

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WHITLAM J

DATE OF ORDER: 22 MAY 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 These two applications have been heard together. The applicant in proceeding N 445 of 2003 is the father of the infant applicant in proceeding N 446 of 2003. Each of the applications seeks review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 21 March 2003 affirming a decision not to grant a bridging visa. The applications are in identical terms. The applications are entirely opaque in terms of any error of law, though each confusingly states that the decision involves s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). I do not accept that the applications raise any constitutional issue which requires a notice under that section to be given and counsel for the respondent does not seek that such a notice be given. 2 The findings of fact made by the Tribunal were, on the outline of material before the Tribunal, within its jurisdiction. The applications failed on the facts found by the Tribunal. The findings were matters of fact for the Tribunal. Nothing has been said by the adult applicant, who has the misfortune to not have a lawyer, to suggest any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. 3 Accordingly in each matter the application is dismissed with costs.